In the ongoing fevered debate over gun control legislation, registration of firearms is a key flashpoint. Progressives insist that nothing could be more reasonable and benign than simply requiring every firearm and firearm owner to be registered with some government entity. Thus, bad guys could be screened out and guns used in crimes could be traced to help catch the criminals. They denounce as paranoid, delusional nonsense the concerns of gun owners that registration would lead to eventual confiscation.

In a Fact Check at Time.com intended to dismiss The Gun Registry Red Herring, Michael Scherer notes that President Obamas Now Is The Time gun plan issued on January 16 does not call for a federal gun registry. However, the Time piece does acknowledge that in a 2001 interview Obama, then a state senator, stated: Ill continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training.

It is reasonable to believe that President Obama still holds to those views and is, at this point, taking a slower, more pragmatic, step-by-step approach to get momentum going in the direction of more expansive firearms restrictions.

Leaving that reasonable speculation aside, however, it is clear that gun rights advocates are far from delusional in suspecting that gun registration might be used to actually confiscate firearms that had previously been deemed legal. First of all, there is the historical record in one country after another. In the past century alone, fascist and communist regimes have used gun registration (oftentimes enacted by previous democratic governments) to identify gun owners and implement confiscation. In Canada, Australia, and many countries of Europe, gun registration has led to confiscation in recent years. It is happening here in the United States with state laws, as the recently passed legislation in New York State demonstrates.

All semantics about Gun Control versus its new brother, Gun Violence aside, nearly every one of these political proponents who are espousing common sense Gun Violence action have at one time or another in their miserable, pitiful, evil political careers have whispered “take all the guns” to those selected few supporters at one time or another.

Earlier this month, Geraldo asked a caller: How could you not trust your own government?

Putting aside big and little episodes of trustworthy government in the history of this country like the Trail of Tears, the interment of Americans of Japanese decent, Kent State, Waco, Fast and Furious and the Bengzai Coverup, I seem to recall Geraldo himself complaining about how the US has treated his native Puerto Rico. But his question diverts our attention. The issue isn’t the relative peace at this instant. The issue is the very nature of government itself.

History is full of governments that ran sufficiently amok as to have become a mortal danger to their own citizens. Indeed, the last centry was so full of episodes of government murdering their own citizens by deliberate official policy that it spawned a new word: democide.

Many in the media who reject American Exceptionaism want us to believe instead that the only exceptionalism left in America is to be found in her government. In how easy they dismiss the Second Amendment as being obsolete, they are telling us that there are no circumstances whatsoever in that some future government could ever run amok. They are willing to stake the lives of their children and grandchildren on that assertion.

Certainly people want to have a trustworthy government. But it concerns me that more than one member of the President’s inner circle has publicly praised China’s Mao, a man responsible for the brutal deaths of over 40 million Chinese citizens. [1,2] I am shocked that a close advisor to the president has favorably quoted Mao’s warning that [political] power comes from the barrel of a gun. [3] It is chilling to see a Mao-themed ornament on a White House Christmas tree, or the number of people who support this administration who also voice approval of the murderous Che Guevara [4,5] It is incongruous that a man who was a leader of a group that contemplated the necessity of murdering 25 million Americans who might reject political reeducation after this group took over the country is now a frequent visitor to the White House. [6,7]

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is busy building up a stockpile of two billion rounds of hollow point pistol ammunition. [8] The very government that Geraldo implies we must trust is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to address a contingency that cannot be explained by current trends. The shocking implication is not who does DHS intent to shoot, but why. Even if this plan devoted 100 rounds to each of these anticipated targets, two billion rounds implies a contingency involving armed action against 20 million people. How many in government anticipate the need to kill 20 million people out of a population of 310 million? Is this the same 20 or so million the Weather Underground anticipated needing to eliminate?

How should I evaluate these facts? As disconnected random coincidences or as a glimpse of the plans of those in power and those who cheer them on?

Last year in Missouri and Minnesota alone, about a million people bought licenses to harvest deer with high powered rifles. About one million Pennsylvanians hunt deer with firearms. Nationally, there are far more deer hunters than government employees of any kind. There are one million Floridians licensed to carry concealed firearms. As long as the relationship between public servants and the public they serve is healthy, then we all can enjoy the blessings of liberty, which was the core reason we formed the federal government in the first place.

But what happens when the public servant thinks he is the public master instead?

Nobody can predict how a future government might endanger our own descendants by running amok. For example, what social, political or legal forces exist today that would stop another Trail of Tears that were not sufficient to stop it the first time? Certainly firearms aren’t the answer to every outrage, or even most. Even though we are all civilized, and strive to be peaceful and polite to everyone, I cannot allow the precious right to keep and bear arms to end with my generation. My future grand children might curse me for neglecting to preserve the very tool they might need most during some urgent crisis in their lives, even though no learned member of the news media could possibly envision such a thing at this moment.

I recall a time when the finest, award winning journalists of their time, like the New York Time’s own Walter Duranty, could not bring themselves to report that Stalin was deliberately starving millions of Ukrainian farmers to death as an act of government policy. Did Duranty and the Times choose to lie because they believed they were serving a higher cause at the time? Is this like when members of today’s media lie about firearms because they are serving a higher cause today? And when some future government they support runs amok and thousands (or millions) die because they have run out of ways to resist, how will the media report it? Like they glowingly talk about the exploits of Che Guevara or Bill Ayers, who they tell us is just a neighbor of the current President?

It is reasonable to believe that President Obama still holds to those views...

Actually, no. Ubama's "views" start out as benign lies for the purpose of getting elected and then "evolve" to suit his true political agenda. Like homo "marriage" for example. This foul piece of sh** Ubama wants complete confiscation of all guns, make no mistake about it. He just can't say it yet.

Earlier this month, Geraldo asked a caller: How could you not trust your own government?

I heard that show. Mike Huckabee was on a little later and when Gerald asked him the same question he totally turned the tables on him. He came back with something like "actually I'm wondering why this government doesn't trust the people."

“Progressives insist that nothing could be more reasonable and benign than simply requiring every firearm and firearm owner to be registered with some government entity.”

Registration? “Progressives,” I got your answer right here:
Hold one hand out in front of you and wish, and cup one behind you and see which gets filled fastest.

You don’t frighten us, pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called “progressives” you and all your silly left peoples.
Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of silly persons! I unplug my nose my nose redux at you! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Ha ha, ho ho.

Beltway Overlords: The invitation remains open. We won’t bring them to you, but you are welcome to (try to) come and get them.

In putting forth something for liberals to answer, I want to use the issues that liberal themselves have used in the past. Waco does not count with them because it was a “cult” and cults are weird and icky and well anything we can do go get rid of cults is OK. But how the government got rid of Native Americans was a different matter entirely, at least to liberals.

I pinged Travis McGee to your thread. I hope he shows up, because I see there's already a trusting government soul on board, and history has proved his trust is misplaced.

Our Founders were brilliant men. They knew that power corrupts. And here we are today. Just imagine if Feinstein had sole power. Just imagine the Republicans losing the House in 2014! You can bet GUN legislation will be first on the agenda again and likely with a new Communist SCOTUS appointment.

The formula is simple, tested in recent history and works when the citizenry is pre-occcupied with the tastes of free bread and circuses, demagogued to pit one segment of the populace against another by creating scapegoats and by instilling a false sense of security from the state over liberty.

Regulate and ban firearms + registration + confiscation. Add in incremental small amounts to prevent a catastrophic explosive reaction. Make a harsh example out of the few hardliners through demonizing, isolating and targeting. Make government "entitlements" dependent on all of the above. End state: Turn citizens into subjects slaved to the state.

The retention of freedom and liberty requires constant vigilance.

25
posted on 01/27/2013 10:01:56 AM PST
by TADSLOS
( "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."-George Mason)

I believe the purpose of Obamacare is to destroy the private medical insurance industry. Once we are all forced onto the federal health program the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration will declare guns to be a health hazard. If you want to keep your guns you will pay a much higher price for you coverage than if you give up your guns. Guns will be treated like smoking, obesity, and alcoholism. Our imperial masters are determined to break us one way or another. Of course to go along with this the fascists will freeze your bank account, garnish your wages, and if necessary have your water and electricity cut off. The imperial elite will get what they want and they don't give a damn about laws, rights, or constitutions. As far as they are concerned every knee shall bow before their god the state. Most people will break under this kind of pressure, and they will only have to come for a few of us.

It's much more likely that they will make them illegal and then prosecute gun owners (new criminals) as they wish.

Once everyone is a criminal they can do whatever they want, justified by the law.

The problem is, if one is going to be in for a penny, so to speak, what prevents them being from being in for a pound? If I'm going down for just owning one, I might as well use it for its intended purpose.

33
posted on 01/27/2013 10:48:06 AM PST
by IYAS9YAS
(Rose, there's a Messerschmitt in the kitchen. Clean it up, will ya?)

Geraldo obviously forgot to ask that question of the Jewish Population in 1935 Germany.

The “Good Germans”, (AKA Liberals) in today's America would have no problem reporting their Gun Owning Neighbors to the proper Authorities, of that I have no doubt.

BTW - Yesterday I was talking to a couple of typical “pay no attention” Americans about the Gun Grabber Obama. They said, you don't really think Obama wants to take your guns, do you? We get it, but it is obvious many others don't.

34
posted on 01/27/2013 11:14:16 AM PST
by Kickass Conservative
(I only Fear a Government that doesn't Fear me.)

And to think, in 1962 Thomas J Dodd and Emaual Cellar proposed the first federal law on common firearms.

1962; We dont want to take away your guns, we ONLY want to register handguns! Rifles and shotguns will not be affected.

1964: We only want to register all your guns, not ban them! Only Army surplus guns will be banned.

1968: We only want to register your guns, and ban Saturday Night Specials and small foreign handguns along with army surplus rifles! (They got the ban on 5 shot army surplus rifles and handguns and small foreign pistols)

1970: We only want to ban Saturday night specials! large handguns and rifles will not be affected! There was also a call at this time to ban all private possession of ALL GUNS.

1976: We only want to ban all handguns! Long guns will not be affected!

1981: The NRA should give up their handguns, and they can keep their rifles!- Lee Grant on GMA

I have one OB butt kisser at work who keeps saying, “They have to do something”.

Dumb @ss says that most criminals run at the sight of a gun so you don’t need large mags. I countered with what if the don’t run, then what? I also pointed out that a lot of people can soak up rounds and still are able to do damage to you.

The Woman who put five .38 Slugs into the Thug a few weeks ago proves the point. Luckily for her and her Children, he was the only intruder.

The guy walked out of the house. I guess he didn’t know if the Woman was reloading and thought it best to leave. Thus proving that the only response is an Armed Response.

Next question to the Obama lover, who is THEY? If History serves, the THEY that disarmed the Citizens of their respective Countries were either Fascists, Communists or Nazis. Which group does your Coworker identify with?

37
posted on 01/27/2013 12:17:38 PM PST
by Kickass Conservative
(I only Fear a Government that doesn't Fear me.)

In a sense I’d say they’re right. He’s probably not going to literally take our guns away. But that’s only because he knows the political conditions aren’t right for it. He understands incrementalism. What he actually is going to do is everything in his power to move things in that direction, to lay the foundation for much stricter controls and possibly even confiscation later. Unfortunately this is a subtler point that probably won’t register with the pay no attention types.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.